Photoactive Inorganic Membranes for Charge Transport...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Photoactive Inorganic Membranes for Charge Transport...

Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Photoactive Inorganic Membranes for Charge Transport...

Author

Message

PV...

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:34 pm

Guest

Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote:c34b21b2d1]Its interesting to see how Mr. Conover (hhc314) and Mr. Vader (PV)
work together to misuse their obvious knowledge of chemistry to
[/quote:c34b21b2d1]
"Obvious knowledge of chemistry"? I never took a class outside of high
school. If you think anything I've written shows evidence of advanced
knowledge of chemistry, you know even less than I do.

If you think your 5 second google that revealed my real name was supposed
to be intimidating, you're mistaken. I use my initials because that's what
everyone calls me, not because I'm hiding anything. Fuck you. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.

bw...

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:35 pm

Guest

"Sam West" <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5bef536-5eba-4449-9811-6eeed273b8cc at (no spam) j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
[quote:30671929cf]Mr. Ward,

Why not ask this question in the 'Where is Mook?' thread??? Why ask
it here?

The answer to your question is;

Why would I talk about Mook's Indonesian projects here?
No one has yet asked me about what I know of Mook's Indonesian
projects.
I am not personally involved in the Indonesian projects.
Those projects are still active while the other projects I mentioned
in the other thread are not.
You can get far better information directly from Mr. Mook's website or
from Mr. Mook himself.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php/indonesian_project/
william.mook at (no spam) mokenergy.com

or from his Indonesian partners in Jakarta.

Sam
[/quote:30671929cf]
You are obviously William Mook. It's obvious to anyone who reads s.e.h.
It does not matter what nyms you use, you are still a waste of good air.

Sam West...

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:57 am

Guest

On Oct 6, 5:35 pm, "bw" <bweg... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:e895ef58ac]"Sam West" <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c5bef536-5eba-4449-9811-6eeed273b8cc at (no spam) j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

Mr. Ward,

Why not ask this question in the 'Where is Mook?' thread??? Why ask
it here?

The answer to your question is;

Why would I talk about Mook's Indonesian projects here?
No one has yet asked me about what I know of Mook's Indonesian
projects.
I am not personally involved in the Indonesian projects.
Those projects are still active while the other projects I mentioned
in the other thread are not.
You can get far better information directly from Mr. Mook's website or
from Mr. Mook himself.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php/indonesian_project/
william.m... at (no spam) mokenergy.com

or from his Indonesian partners in Jakarta.

Sam

You are obviously William Mook. It's obvious to anyone who reads s.e.h.
It does not matter what nyms you use, you are still a waste of good air.
[/quote:e895ef58ac]
Brent,

With just a little searching I was able to find your contact
information in Nebraska. I was also able to see that you sold some
antique engines in 2004 and volunteered for the NSHS.

Likewise with just a little searching you should be able to find my
contact information in Ohio. You will even be able to see that I am
involved with Team West and One Fast Girl Racing and was recently at
the Bonneville Salt Flats with some friends making records.

http://roadracerpodcast.blogspot.com/2006/04/team-westonefastgirl-racing.html

I am spending way too much time online on this subject.

But I am curious.

What is it that irritates you and your friends so much about me
defending my friend William Mook? Especially after you asked 'Where
is Mook?'

Why ask about Mook here instead of in that other thread?

All very curious.

Brent, if you want to talk to Mr. Mook directly, you may contact him
through his web site. I can tell you he has no interest whatever what
is going on here.

Mr. Ward mentioned Indonesia earlier. If anyone wants to know more
about Indonesia, Mr. Mook will give you the contact information of
people he's working with in Jakarta. I also know Mook's working with
people in Sydney on projects in Australia if you're interested in
that.

You may contact me directly as well through SMAntenna or Team West.

Why am I posting?

The only reason I'm online is I'm selling a 1994 Monaco Monarch RV on
Craig's list. Mr. Mook and I are doing a little antenna job for the
USAF and I've been associated with his efforts since 2004 and I'm
sending and getting e-mails through this site.

This is all easily verified as absolutely true - and shoots in the
heat the idea I'm Mr. Mook.

Sam West...

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:58 am

Guest

My bad Paul. I accept totally that you don't know what the hell
you're talking about. In that case maybe you should shut up and
listen to your betters when they're speaking to you.

hhc314...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:31 pm

Guest

On Oct 5, 1:10 pm, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:a6a7d4711a]On Oct 4, 11:48 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 1:06 pm, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 11:18 am, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 11:00 am, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 1, 8:44 pm, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Check out;

Photoactive Inorganic Membranes for Charge Transport, Prabir Dutta,
Ohio State University

Here, Dr. Dutta, uses integrated photochemical molecular assemblies to
convert solar energy directly to chemical energy. Specifically
polypyridyl ruthenium-bipyridinium supramolecular systems produce long-
lived photochemically generated separated charge pairs when exposed to
sunlight. Long-lived charge separated states is exploited to generate
chemicals like 2 H2 and O2 from H2O.

Dutta stuctures the supramolecular assembly onto a zeolite membrane
and photochemically transports charge across the membrane providing
spatial charge separation using light-driven electron/hole transfer.

Dutta demonstrated practical charge propagation and long-range spatial
separation in zeolite membranes. Charge separation must then be
integrated into specific membrane structures to efficiently promote
direct chemical synthesis from sunlight.

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress08_production.html

Thanks for posting this, and in particular, thanks for posting this
URL which deserves repeating:

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress08_production.html

It's unusual in that the pdf file links provided are for the entire
paper, not simpy the abstract that is so often the case.

On the downside, at least for the scientifically inclined, one should
not open this URL late in the evening because it will likely 4:00 am
when you go to bed glassy eyed because you can't stop with reading
just one of these excellent papers...and there are too many to digest
at a single sitting so save this URL for future reference.

Again, thank you for posting it. It is the best post that I've
personally read on sci.energy.hydrogen over the past 10 years!

Harry C.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As an afterthought, I became so engrossed in reading other papers that
it took me some time to locate Dr. Dutta's. It is paper #12, Section
K (Basic Energy Sciences).

Hope that this helps someone to locate it.

Harry C.

Thanks.

The science supports the business of the coming energy economy based
on sunlight. The point is hydrogen may be made from sunlight and
water very efficiently, and very cheaply.

This is not quite true. Read the paper that you cited, and grasp it's
limited significance.

The hydrogen economy is a wishful thought, and not a very good thought
at that. Since you appear to be a strudent, run the damn number and
them come back and post your conclusions. It's as simple as that.

Harry C.

Mr. Conover,

You are trying to fool us.

Sunlight is free. Water is nearly so. Combine the two with low-cost
equipment to create hydrogen and oxygen cheaply, and oil has a
competitor in hydrogen.

There's plenty of hydrogen available too. The oceans are a lot bigger
than the limited oil supplies undergound. More than 10,000x as much
solar power as we need to run everything today.

All we need is a reason to create a supply of cheap plentiful
hydrogen.

Honda's Clarity gives us a reason.

Why does that drive you nuts Mr. Conover?

On the one hand you make 60 posts a month saying cars like the Clarity
are boat anchors.

On the other hand you make 60 posts a month saying low cost hydrogen
is a waste of time since no one is set up to use it.

Meanwhile attacking everyone who puts 2 and 2 together as frauds
idiots or perverts.

Very strange- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote:a6a7d4711a]
ROFL!

Did you watch that recent episode of "Monk" with the "Internet People"
who he could not convince he wasn't a Martian?

Now while I believe you are obviously joking, there are many under
educated people he reading your post that will read your post and
believe it to be sincere. I find that sad.

It's pretty much that same thing with Internet solar power
enthusiasts, not one of which understands the science involved or has
ever made any attempt to run the numbers or convemplate the
environmental ramifications associated with the manufacture of large
quanitiies of solar panels. Do people realize that the manufacture of
solar panels employs pretty much the same process and chemicals employ
to produce other types of semiconductor products, and that because of
the environmental contamination produces, has been prohibited in many
if not most areas of the United States? Why do you think that most
semiconductors are produced offshore, or in Mexico. It's one of those
"not in my backyard" type things.

Don't know about you guys, I would definitely prefer an increase in
atmospheric CO2 than I would with drinking water contamination with
the runoff from any semiconductor facility. Learn how semiconductor
products, including solar cells are produced, and the toxic chemicals
employed, then dumped.

Harry C.

hhc314...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:44 pm

Guest

On Oct 5, 1:54 pm, pv+use... at (no spam) pobox.com (PV) wrote:
[quote:5305ec71b8]Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
You are trying to fool us.

Who's "us", Willie?

Sunlight is free. Water is nearly so. Combine the two with low-cost
equipment to create hydrogen and oxygen cheaply, and oil has a
competitor in hydrogen.

Then do it! How come it hasn't happened already? How come no major power
utility is using solar as a significant amount of their load? We know why -
it's because solar in its present form, even in an optimum grid-buy
configration, takes decades to make back the investment. And that's
assuming something better doesn't come along later after you've sunk the
costs in an old system.

There's plenty of hydrogen available too. The oceans are a lot bigger
than the limited oil supplies undergound. More than 10,000x as much
solar power as we need to run everything today.

You can't mine hydrogen, you dingbat.

All we need is a reason to create a supply of cheap plentiful
hydrogen.

How do you create something that's cheap and plentiful? If it's plentiful,
you wouldn't need to create it.

Honda's Clarity gives us a reason.

Honda's Clarity is a piece of public relations and will never be a viable
car for any other purpose.

Why does that drive you nuts Mr. Conover?

Liars, soundrels, and nutrods make sensible people angry. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
[/quote:5305ec71b8]
Good point, PV. Just for the record, I'm 71 years old, and the first
solar cell that I had was in a "Things of Science" kid distributed to
school children when I in 3rd grade. When exposed to sunlight, it
could produce enough electric current to slighly deflect a 1-
Milliampere meter, simply to show that it did produce at least some
electricity from sunlight. While those produced today, 60 years
later, are more efficient, they are simply not that much more
efficient.

In the years that transpired since that time, semiconductor diodes
were perfected, then came transistors and 15 years after that,
integrated circuits making microprocessors and lap top computers
possible. Man has set foot on the moon, and nuclear power plants
supply nearly half of the electrical power on earth (except here in
the US). Still, semiconductor solar cells remain effectively toys for
recreational use.

Anybody want to explain that to me?

Harry C.

p.s., Green Power equates to building more nukes!

hhc314...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:52 pm

Guest

On Oct 6, 6:25 am, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:a316f610cb]There is plenty of hydrogen in water. There is plenty of energy in
sunlight. Dutta's paper suggests a way to cheaply get hydrogen from
water and sunlight.

Its interesting to see how Mr. Conover (hhc314) and Mr. Vader (PV)
work together to misuse their obvious knowledge of chemistry to
mislead people with purposely confusing statements and outright lies.
They're both douchebags for that reason and should be ignored. They
cannot be trusted.

For example, Mr. Vader says, "you can't mine hydrogen dingbat" in a
way that suggests we don't have plenty of hydrogen and plenty of
energy to make hydrogen cheaply available at costs that would make
hydrogen competitive with oil. He says this even while I carefully
pointed out that we had water AND sunlight (we also have water AND
high temperature nuclear reactors) He ignores this preferring to
focus on spouting confusing bullshit as if I didn't say anything about
the requirement of sunlight (or nuclear energy).

Mr. Conover trying to convince people that the new Honda Clarity is a
'boat anchor' without fuel, I pointed out that carbon free hydrogen
would make Clarity a huge hit. Conover then claimed hydrogen with
carbon isn't hydrogen in response to my statement about carbon-free
hydrogen. When I carefully explained hydrogen made with sunlight is
different than hydrogen made with the shift reaction he exhibited a
detailed knowledge of the shift reaction. So, why pretend to be
confused? Just to mislead people.

Mr Conover's and Mr. Vader's use statistics are interesting. They
have both made 60 or more posts every month for years all with the
same sort of malicious disregard of the facts to promote three points;

hydrogen cannot be a practical fuel
so hydrogen powered anything is a waste
anyone who says different is a fraud, a fool, or a pervert

They have such a good knowledge of basic physics and chemistry, and
are so adamant about this subject and are so malicious in their
disregard of reality in the tens of thousands of similar posts on this
subject, that it seems to me they are hired hands - pensioners
getting a little bonus from the oil companies they worked for or took
kickbacks from - to make sure this emerging communications channel did
not become a problem for their bosses.

Objective reality is quite different than the world they are
attempting to sell everyone. Anyone who stands up to them is in for
it! They chased away my friend Mr. Mook. They're rounding up the
wagons to do the same to me.

Major oil wants to keep the following facts out of the public's firm
knowledge;

hydrogen is a practical fuel
anything powered by fossil fuels, may be powered by hydrogen
anyone who says you can't do these things is a fraud or a fool

Here are some basic actual real things to know about hydrogen;

A metric ton of hydrogen may be made from 275 gallons of water using
solar processes or nuclear processes at costs less than the equivalent
cost of any fossil fuel.

A metric ton of hydrogen costing $700 delivers the same amount of
energy as $30 a barrel oil.
A metric ton of hydrogen costing $100 delivers the same amount of
energy as $4 a barrel oil.

Here are some actual real things to know about the oil companies;

The discovery rate of oil peaked in 1996.
Oil is a depleting resource
The only way oil companies have to increase their market value is to
raise the price of oil
Low cost hydrogen made abundantly from sunlight and nuclear and
biological sources put a cap on oil prices

Is it any wonder Mr. Conover and Mr. Vader and others are paid by the
oil companies to troll the internet and keep this emerging channel
firmly under the control of the oil companies? McCain lost the
election in part because Obama knew how to use the internet to get
votes and McCain didn't. Do you think the wise guys at the energy
companies haven't thought this all through?

The oil companies have been thinking about their end game strategy
since Hubbert who worked for Shell at the time figured out the
logistics curve for oil in 1954. The oil companies themselves created
OPEC in 1960 to avoid rising exploration costs. They stopped building
refineries when discovery rates peaked. They sold off their retail
operations when prices rose to levels that caused Americans to drive
less.

The oil companies have been very lucky in their plan to get the most
out of their depleting reserves.

Hubbert's findings were marginalized. So politicians weren't stirred
up to nationalize oil and messing up the oil company's end game. When
Louis 'too cheap to meter' Strauss said nuclear energy would solve our
problem, he was fired. Lucky oil companies. High temp reactors in
1950s would have capped oil prices at $3 per barrel, and the rosy
scenarios of the 1950s would have come to pass as America, not Saudi
Arabia received trillions of dollars.

When JFK tasked BNL to make high-temp nuclear reactors, he was
assassinated. Bad day for the nation. Lucky day for the oil
companies. LBJ ignored BNL. Nixon asked the oil companies themselves
to shape our energy future. This created the first energy crisis and
got oil from $2 per barrel to $10. Carter taking office during an
energy crisis proposed the nuclear option outlined by Straus and BNL
to Congress. The month he submitted his proposal Three Mile Island
melted down, China Syndrome was released in theaters, and Karen
Silkwood judgment was handed down - ending any talk of a nuclear
option. Lucky day again for the oil companies. Bad day for America.
Reagan took over and organized a global muslim militant movement under
the Reagan Doctrine to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. This later
got out of hand and turned on us. We're fighting these same people
today. Meanwhile, to pay for the wholesale transfer of trillions of
dollars of wealth into the Middle East to pay for all the oil we
import, Regan restructured the banking system, which did in the S&Ls,
and sold our mortgages to the Chinese and Saudis. Which deferred the
costs we were running up, but which we're paying for now.

Had Mr. Mook's plan been adopted in 2004 -it still would not have
produced any oil until next year. Yet, had the plan been adopted, oil
would not have gone above $22 per barrel. America would have saved
$50 per barrel on every barrel of oil sold. And the $8.4 trillion in
cash that flowed out of our banking system from 2004 to 2008 would
still be here and things would be quite different.

That can be said of any approach between 1954 and today that provided
real competition to the major energy companies.
[/quote:a316f610cb]
Froth on Sam, and since neither you nor Mr. Mook (whoever he is) can
produce results, simply flame your critics!

Rhetoric will never replace results, even it it did earn Obama a Nobel
Peace Prize. Results are, in the real world, all that matters.

Warms somone's home in freezing, dark months, or cool their home
during the blazing heat of the summer, or power even rail
transportation for people to get to and around the city for their
jobs. Power a hospital or a nursing home.

When you do some or all of these things, maybe too you can qualify for
a Nobel Prize, but then science tells us that can never happen, at
least by solar power.

Harry C.

hhc314...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:55 pm

Guest

On Oct 7, 7:57 am, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:fcd968e8ae]On Oct 6, 5:35 pm, "bw" <bweg... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

"Sam West" <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c5bef536-5eba-4449-9811-6eeed273b8cc at (no spam) j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com....

Mr. Ward,

Why not ask this question in the 'Where is Mook?' thread??? Why ask
it here?

The answer to your question is;

Why would I talk about Mook's Indonesian projects here?
No one has yet asked me about what I know of Mook's Indonesian
projects.
I am not personally involved in the Indonesian projects.
Those projects are still active while the other projects I mentioned
in the other thread are not.
You can get far better information directly from Mr. Mook's website or
from Mr. Mook himself.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php/indonesian_project/
william.m... at (no spam) mokenergy.com

or from his Indonesian partners in Jakarta.

Sam

You are obviously William Mook. It's obvious to anyone who reads s.e.h.
It does not matter what nyms you use, you are still a waste of good air..

Brent,

With just a little searching I was able to find your contact
information in Nebraska. I was also able to see that you sold some
antique engines in 2004 and volunteered for the NSHS.

Likewise with just a little searching you should be able to find my
contact information in Ohio. You will even be able to see that I am
involved with Team West and One Fast Girl Racing and was recently at
the Bonneville Salt Flats with some friends making records.

http://roadracerpodcast.blogspot.com/2006/04/team-westonefastgirl-rac...

I am spending way too much time online on this subject.

But I am curious.

What is it that irritates you and your friends so much about me
defending my friend William Mook? Especially after you asked 'Where
is Mook?'

Why ask about Mook here instead of in that other thread?

All very curious.

Brent, if you want to talk to Mr. Mook directly, you may contact him
through his web site. I can tell you he has no interest whatever what
is going on here.

Mr. Ward mentioned Indonesia earlier. If anyone wants to know more
about Indonesia, Mr. Mook will give you the contact information of
people he's working with in Jakarta. I also know Mook's working with
people in Sydney on projects in Australia if you're interested in
that.

You may contact me directly as well through SMAntenna or Team West.

Why am I posting?

The only reason I'm online is I'm selling a 1994 Monaco Monarch RV on
Craig's list. Mr. Mook and I are doing a little antenna job for the
USAF and I've been associated with his efforts since 2004 and I'm
sending and getting e-mails through this site.

This is all easily verified as absolutely true - and shoots in the
heat the idea I'm Mr. Mook.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote:fcd968e8ae]
Sam, nobody here cares if you are in fact Mr. Mook (again, whoever he
is).

It is your posts alone that tell readers that you are a certified
kook.

Harry C.

hhc314...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:58 pm

Guest

On Oct 7, 7:58 am, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:6efe772042]My bad Paul. I accept totally that you don't know what the hell
you're talking about. In that case maybe you should shut up and
listen to your betters when they're speaking to you.
[/quote:6efe772042]
Sam, give it up. You're profile indicates that you've been only
posting since the start of October, and have thus far posted 47 times
on the subject you are attempting to promote for unexplained reasons.

What name were you posting under previously, and why did you change
it?

Please go away!

Harry C.

Sam West...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:25 pm

Guest

On Oct 10, 7:55 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:5bc2ee6843]On Oct 7, 7:57 am, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:35 pm, "bw" <bweg... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

"Sam West" <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c5bef536-5eba-4449-9811-6eeed273b8cc at (no spam) j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com....

Mr. Ward,

Why not ask this question in the 'Where is Mook?' thread??? Why ask
it here?

The answer to your question is;

Why would I talk about Mook's Indonesian projects here?
No one has yet asked me about what I know of Mook's Indonesian
projects.
I am not personally involved in the Indonesian projects.
Those projects are still active while the other projects I mentioned
in the other thread are not.
You can get far better information directly from Mr. Mook's website or
from Mr. Mook himself.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php/indonesian_project/
william.m... at (no spam) mokenergy.com

or from his Indonesian partners in Jakarta.

Sam

You are obviously William Mook. It's obvious to anyone who reads s.e.h.
It does not matter what nyms you use, you are still a waste of good air.

Brent,

With just a little searching I was able to find your contact
information in Nebraska. I was also able to see that you sold some
antique engines in 2004 and volunteered for the NSHS.

Likewise with just a little searching you should be able to find my
contact information in Ohio. You will even be able to see that I am
involved with Team West and One Fast Girl Racing and was recently at
the Bonneville Salt Flats with some friends making records.

http://roadracerpodcast.blogspot.com/2006/04/team-westonefastgirl-rac...

I am spending way too much time online on this subject.

But I am curious.

What is it that irritates you and your friends so much about me
defending my friend William Mook? Especially after you asked 'Where
is Mook?'

Why ask about Mook here instead of in that other thread?

All very curious.

Brent, if you want to talk to Mr. Mook directly, you may contact him
through his web site. I can tell you he has no interest whatever what
is going on here.

Mr. Ward mentioned Indonesia earlier. If anyone wants to know more
about Indonesia, Mr. Mook will give you the contact information of
people he's working with in Jakarta. I also know Mook's working with
people in Sydney on projects in Australia if you're interested in
that.

You may contact me directly as well through SMAntenna or Team West.

Why am I posting?

The only reason I'm online is I'm selling a 1994 Monaco Monarch RV on
Craig's list. Mr. Mook and I are doing a little antenna job for the
USAF and I've been associated with his efforts since 2004 and I'm
sending and getting e-mails through this site.

This is all easily verified as absolutely true - and shoots in the
heat the idea I'm Mr. Mook.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam, nobody here cares if you are in fact Mr. Mook (again, whoever he
is).
[/quote:5bc2ee6843]
You brought it up Mr. Conover. I was responding to questions folks
asked about Mr. Mook, relating facts that are easily verified on line.

[quote:5bc2ee6843]It is your posts alone that tell readers that you are a certified
kook.
[/quote:5bc2ee6843]
That honor goes to you Harry.

> Harry C.

Sam West...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:33 pm

Guest

On Oct 10, 7:58 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:a986fcfa05]On Oct 7, 7:58 am, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

My bad Paul. I accept totally that you don't know what the hell
you're talking about. In that case maybe you should shut up and
listen to your betters when they're speaking to you.

Sam, give it up. You're profile indicates that you've been only
posting since the start of October, and have thus far posted 47 times
on the subject you are attempting to promote for unexplained reasons.
[/quote:a986fcfa05]
I saw a thread asking about Mr. Mook, and decided to reply. I have
since responded to disinformation you and others are attempting to
purvey relating to the viability of hydrogen as an energy source and
about Mr. Mook's efforts in this field. My responses are as nothing
compared to your efforts and the efforts of your friends.

[quote:a986fcfa05]What name were you posting under previously, and why did you change
it?
[/quote:a986fcfa05]
I have never posted on Google Groups before and I never changed
anything. I created a Google account to manage a USAF antenna project
I'm involved with and I'm using that account as a contact point for
selling an old 1994 RV through Craig's list. When the project is
done, I will end the account. My only other contact was through
Rhiannon, since I own Team West and One Fast Girl Racing and have
recently returned from the Bonnieville Salt Flats where I helped win a
speed record with some friends of mine here in Ohio.

[quote:a986fcfa05]Please go away!
[/quote:a986fcfa05]
Why? Is this your private domain? You congratulated me a week ago on
the references I gave. Now you're asking me to go away. You really
should look into getting some meds to take care of those mood swings.

> Harry C.

Sam West...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:14 pm

Guest

On Oct 10, 7:44 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:bf364f327c]On Oct 5, 1:54 pm, pv+use... at (no spam) pobox.com (PV) wrote:

Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
You are trying to fool us.

Who's "us", Willie?

Sunlight is free. Water is nearly so. Combine the two with low-cost
equipment to create hydrogen and oxygen cheaply, and oil has a
competitor in hydrogen.

Then do it! How come it hasn't happened already? How come no major power
utility is using solar as a significant amount of their load? We know why -
it's because solar in its present form, even in an optimum grid-buy
configration, takes decades to make back the investment. And that's
assuming something better doesn't come along later after you've sunk the
costs in an old system.

There's plenty of hydrogen available too. The oceans are a lot bigger
than the limited oil supplies undergound. More than 10,000x as much
solar power as we need to run everything today.

You can't mine hydrogen, you dingbat.

All we need is a reason to create a supply of cheap plentiful
hydrogen.

How do you create something that's cheap and plentiful? If it's plentiful,
you wouldn't need to create it.

Honda's Clarity gives us a reason.

Honda's Clarity is a piece of public relations and will never be a viable
car for any other purpose.

Why does that drive you nuts Mr. Conover?

Liars, soundrels, and nutrods make sensible people angry. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.

Good point, PV. Just for the record, I'm 71 years old, and the first
solar cell that I had was in a "Things of Science" kid distributed to
school children when I in 3rd grade. When exposed to sunlight, it
could produce enough electric current to slighly deflect a 1-
Milliampere meter, simply to show that it did produce at least some
electricity from sunlight. While those produced today, 60 years
later, are more efficient, they are simply not that much more
efficient.

In the years that transpired since that time, semiconductor diodes
were perfected, then came transistors and 15 years after that,
integrated circuits making microprocessors and lap top computers
possible. Man has set foot on the moon, and nuclear power plants
supply nearly half of the electrical power on earth (except here in
the US). Still, semiconductor solar cells remain effectively toys for
recreational use.

Anybody want to explain that to me?

Harry C.

p.s., Green Power equates to building more nukes!
[/quote:bf364f327c]
Harry, you said you weren't knowledgeable and I see now you are right.

Look up Moore's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Computers and consumer electronics deal with information. Solar
cells (and nukes) deal with energy. That's the difference. A square
inch of silicon is patterned far more finely today than it was in
1960s. A square inch of sunlight contains the same amount of energy
per second today as it did in 1960s.

Mr. Mook and others pointed out in the 1980s that focusing sunlight to
a point on a PV device achieves improvements in the amount of energy
processed per square inch of PV device - reducing the PV costs. The
issue then becomes balance of system costs, and thermodynamic limits
in achieving those low costs. Mook developed two approaches. A thin
film gas stabilized concentrator, and a molded plastic lens cavity
filled with optical fluid. Both approaches reduce costs to pennies
per watt for solar collectors while maintaining 40% conversion
efficiencies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbWNnVsBhOg
http://twitpic.com/2pe4r
http://twitpic.com/2pd0h
http://twitpic.com/2p3q9
http://twitpic.com/2p3q9

So, Mook's panels according to his published results (below) report
achieving 1,200 watts in a 4ft x 8ft panel during peak illumination,
and 1,200 of them produce 1.44 MW in a 8ft x 4,800 ft string. Each
string costs $60,000 in quantity. In Ohio such a string produces 35.5
tons of hydrogen a year from 79,875 gallons of water a year when
attached to a pair of electrolyzers that cost $20,000 each.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20047598/Mook-Patent-Application
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024194/Pages-1-42-From-Mok-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20019383/mokenergy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1

Twenty-five tons of hydrogen from each string is burned in place of
155 tons of coal eliminating 550 tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.

Another 10.5 tons of hydrogen is combined directly with the coal using
the Bergius process to make 1,054 barrels of solar-syncrude worth over
$80,000 in a year using equipment that costs an additional $52,700.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024088/White-Paper-Wafer-Fab
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1931/bergius-lecture..html

TOTAL ONE TIME CHARGE: $60,000 solar panels
$40,000 electrolysis
$52,700 Bergius
reactor

$152,700 TOTAL

8 ft x 4,800 ft solar
panels
8 ft x 16 ft x 2
electrolysis
16 ft x 16 ft Bergius
reactor

ANNUAL REVENUE: 25 tons hydrogen at 38% efficiency --> 377.4
MWh at $100/Mwh $37,740/year
10.5 tons hydrogen + 155
tons coal --> 1,054 bbls at $80/bbl $84,320/year

$121,680/year - $3,720/year coal cost = $117,960/year
gross margin

A huge return on investment at the prices quoted!

Sam West...

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:46 pm

Guest

On Oct 10, 7:31 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:d43af27c4a]On Oct 5, 1:10 pm, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 11:48 pm, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 1:06 pm, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 11:18 am, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 3, 11:00 am, hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 1, 8:44 pm, Sam West <smante... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Check out;

Photoactive Inorganic Membranes for Charge Transport, Prabir Dutta,
Ohio State University

Here, Dr. Dutta, uses integrated photochemical molecular assemblies to
convert solar energy directly to chemical energy. Specifically
polypyridyl ruthenium-bipyridinium supramolecular systems produce long-
lived photochemically generated separated charge pairs when exposed to
sunlight. Long-lived charge separated states is exploited to generate
chemicals like 2 H2 and O2 from H2O.

Dutta stuctures the supramolecular assembly onto a zeolite membrane
and photochemically transports charge across the membrane providing
spatial charge separation using light-driven electron/hole transfer.

Dutta demonstrated practical charge propagation and long-range spatial
separation in zeolite membranes. Charge separation must then be
integrated into specific membrane structures to efficiently promote
direct chemical synthesis from sunlight.

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress08_production.html

Thanks for posting this, and in particular, thanks for posting this
URL which deserves repeating:

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress08_production.html

It's unusual in that the pdf file links provided are for the entire
paper, not simpy the abstract that is so often the case.

On the downside, at least for the scientifically inclined, one should
not open this URL late in the evening because it will likely 4:00 am
when you go to bed glassy eyed because you can't stop with reading
just one of these excellent papers...and there are too many to digest
at a single sitting so save this URL for future reference.

Again, thank you for posting it. It is the best post that I've
personally read on sci.energy.hydrogen over the past 10 years!

Harry C.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As an afterthought, I became so engrossed in reading other papers that
it took me some time to locate Dr. Dutta's. It is paper #12, Section
K (Basic Energy Sciences).

Hope that this helps someone to locate it.

Harry C.

Thanks.

The science supports the business of the coming energy economy based
on sunlight. The point is hydrogen may be made from sunlight and
water very efficiently, and very cheaply.

This is not quite true. Read the paper that you cited, and grasp it's
limited significance.

The hydrogen economy is a wishful thought, and not a very good thought
at that. Since you appear to be a strudent, run the damn number and
them come back and post your conclusions. It's as simple as that.

Harry C.

Mr. Conover,

You are trying to fool us.

Sunlight is free. Water is nearly so. Combine the two with low-cost
equipment to create hydrogen and oxygen cheaply, and oil has a
competitor in hydrogen.

There's plenty of hydrogen available too. The oceans are a lot bigger
than the limited oil supplies undergound. More than 10,000x as much
solar power as we need to run everything today.

All we need is a reason to create a supply of cheap plentiful
hydrogen.

Honda's Clarity gives us a reason.

Why does that drive you nuts Mr. Conover?

On the one hand you make 60 posts a month saying cars like the Clarity
are boat anchors.

On the other hand you make 60 posts a month saying low cost hydrogen
is a waste of time since no one is set up to use it.

Meanwhile attacking everyone who puts 2 and 2 together as frauds
idiots or perverts.

Very strange- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ROFL!

Did you watch that recent episode of "Monk" with the "Internet People"
who he could not convince he wasn't a Martian?
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
This has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.

[quote:d43af27c4a]Now while I believe you are obviously joking,
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
No.

[quote:d43af27c4a]there are many under
educated people he reading your post that will read your post and
believe it to be sincere.
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
You are the under-educated one. By your own admission.

[quote:d43af27c4a] I find that sad.
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
Its in your head, not mine. I cannot change your mind. You can.

[quote:d43af27c4a]It's pretty much that same thing with Internet solar power
enthusiasts, not one of which understands the science involved or has
ever made any attempt to run the numbers
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
Mr. Mook has supplied the numbers and had them vetted with independent
tests.

[quote:d43af27c4a]or convemplate the
environmental ramifications associated with the manufacture of large
quanitiies of solar panels.
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
How something is done determines what the impact is. When I tried to
engage you in specifics you admitted you didn't have the knowledge to
sustain your end of the conversation. The way Mr. Mook has proposed
building solar panels, using concentrated photovoltaics, provides real
benefit.

[quote:d43af27c4a]Do people realize that the manufacture of
solar panels employs pretty much the same process and chemicals employ
to produce other types of semiconductor products, and that because of
the environmental contamination produces, has been prohibited in many
if not most areas of the United States?
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
You make these stupendous statements. What data do you cite to
support them?

[quote:d43af27c4a]Why do you think that most
semiconductors are produced offshore, or in Mexico. It's one of those
"not in my backyard" type things.
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
You are not providing any support whatever for anything you say, yet
you assert things to be true that are clearly not true.

The US consumes over 20 million barrels of crude oil each day, burns
2.5 million tons of liquid fuels and creates 9.1 million tons of CO2
every day. In addition each day America burns 3.1 million tons of
coal producing 11.2 million tons of added CO2 every day that way.

Yet, here you are attempting to tell us without any data whatever that
silicon is a huge hazard! haha..

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) publishes data on Silicon
use and production in the USA. Here is what they have to say

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/silicmcs04.pdf

1,451 tons of silicon are consumed in the US every day.
Of this 684 tons per day is produced in the USA,
80 tons is recycled each day,
and the balance is imported.

Now, it takes 10 tons of conventional solar panels to plate over an
acre of land.

It takes 3.4 pounds of silicon to plate over an acre of land with Mook
CPV panels operating at 5,800x solar intensity.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024088/White-Paper-Wafer-Fab

To replace the 3.1 million tons of coal each day with 500,000 tons of
hydrogen each day, requires that 1.12 billion gallons of water is
broken down using DC electricity made with 4 million acres of Mook CPV
panels. These panels require 6,400 tons of silicon to be processed
once. A 30 year lifespan this requires 0.6 tons per day to maintain
this area, once established. A 10 year build out requires 1.8 tons of
silicon per day to support.

The acquisition of an existing silicon foundry along with a plastics
processing plant equivalent to a single PET bottling plant in
capacity, to build the optical component is sufficient to the task of
replacing ALL the coal in the US with pollution free solar hydrogen in
10 years. Another 4 years and another 200,000 tons of hydrogen per
day converts all the stranded coal into 7 billion barrels of liquid
fuels. When combined with America's conventional oil production this
capacity gives the USA the means to become the world's largest
exporter of oil and positions the USA to control the world's energy
market by controlling the expansion of low-cost solar derived
hydrogen.

[quote:d43af27c4a]Don't know about you guys, I would definitely prefer an increase in
atmospheric CO2 than I would with drinking water contamination with
the runoff from any semiconductor facility.
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
Is this a problem? Only 1% of the silicon produced today is
sufficient with the right CPV technology to transform the energy
business and get us off coal and oil permanently.

[quote:d43af27c4a]Learn how semiconductor
products, including solar cells are produced, and the toxic chemicals
employed, then dumped.
[/quote:d43af27c4a]
How are we supposed to do that Harry? You provided absolutely no data
to back up your baseless assertions. Fortunately the USGS does
provide data, and when combined with the research Mook supported from
Boeing, indicates that a private entity like Mook, can easily bring
about a sea change in the way we approach energy.

> Harry C.

Sam West...

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:08 am

Guest

According to the documents I have seen from Mr. Mook a single panel
production plant the size of a large bottling plant, handling the same
amount of liquids and plastic as a typical bottling plant, along with
a wafer fab making silicon dies with windows in them, and a silicon
foundry as a source of silicon, transforms the energy business in the
USA by making enough panels in 15 years to make enough hydrogen a day
to allow the USA to eliminate all imported oil and in the end turning
America into the world's largest exporter of crude oil in less than 20
years with a single plant and supply chain with only 1,500 people.

Mook doesn't stop there.

Mook calls for taking the profits from syncrude sales to support the
construction of 14 panels plants and the acquisition of domestic wafer
fab and silicon foundries repurposed from the consumer electronics
business in the USA.

This along with appropriate metal-fab capabilities provides a means to
support the construction of 210,000 square miles of solar panels over
the 10 years a far larger area that allows America to dominate the
world's energy markets with hydrogen very quickly.

Mook sees that using his technology in this way alll stationary power
plants are converted to hydrogen, all low-rank fuels now burned at
those plants are converted into liquid transporation fuels, and with
low cost energy world wide, dramatic growth in India, China, Africa,
Russia, and South America are supported with low-cost hydrogen made
from sunlight and water - all made in America allowing America to pay
its bills and exercise control over those who would disrupt progress
using this revitalized power of the purse.

To those who say fourteen plants a handful of wafer fabs and a few
silicon founderies is impossible, Mr. Mook points out that Coca Cola
company operates over 700 bottling plants each of which proceses the
same amount of plastic and liquid as one of his panel plants. The
consumer electronics industry operates 300 wafer fabs and over 100
silicon founderies. Consumer electronics industry because of changes
in wafer diameter and feature size dispose of 70 wafer fabs each year
and 20 founderies. Mr. Mook dealing with thermodynamics not
information doesn't need the latest or greatest technology to meet the
needs of his panels. So, a modest acquisition program gets his
operation up and running very quickly with an experienced work force.

A modest order (by energy standards) gets the ball rolling. A credit-
worthy airline or government agency that commits to $10 billion of
fuel delivered sometime in the near future, with little to no money
today, is sufficient, with a vital banking system, to obtain the funds
to develop a modest coal field into a sizeable oil field that will
then fulfill the order and provide payback for the financiers along
with a revenue stream to expand. Once a critical mass is reached Mr.
Mook then leverages increasing asset value to expand the process to 14
plants and support centers for his supply chain, and builds panels on
210,000 square miles of land in the US West which are converted to
making enough hydrogen to support all people throughout the world at
US energy levels within the next few decades while converting oil coal
and natural gas to minor specialty chemical supplies n our economy.

Recent changes in our banking system and economy has caused Mr. Mook
to take a step back from his earlier approach of monetizing an order.
Mook is now working at a more modest level with people in Australia
and elsewhere to make fresh water and salt from salt water using a
hydrogen powered flash evaporator with Oslo crystallizer. Here solar
derived hydrogen supplies the energy to make water and salt from
seawater in places like Australia, Cyprus, UAE. Each plant also is
self powered and even produces a modest amount of spare electrical
power along with water and salt, all from solar derived hydrogen.
Small solar hydrogen generaiton systems are also being installed at
silicon processing plants that want to reduce carbon footprint.
Hydrogen is used to purify silicon today and that is of interest to
some clients according to Mook.

Most recently Mook has offered utilities in the State of Ohio solar
derived hydrogen as a means to meet their portfolio standards without
increasing their energy costs. This is opposed by people like GE
Solar and First Solar in Toledo, which is hoping to cash in with $1.6
billion in solar panels sales. Mook offers utilities a way to meet
the standard without making huge investments by merely buying solar
derived hydrogen instead of natural gas. Mook has even structured
energy contracts to qualified parties so utilities may avoid the risks
involved in developing this new fuel supply in Ohio. It is on a small
scale the same process envisioned on a larger scale involving a few
tens of millions of dollars per month in fuel sales, sufficient to
support the conversion of Ohio brownfields into hydrogen farms
sufficient to supply 70 MW of continuous solar output using hydrogen.

In this way, Mook will accumulate a far smaller critical mass of $25
million in profits - sufficient for tooling CPV systems for low cost
hydrogen production.

Mook will then create a SPAC - a special purpose acquisition company -
on the NYSE. Mook will use SPAC funds to acquire troubled coal
companies and oil retailers merge the two companies that become with
his new hydrogen source, domestic integrated oil companies that
produce oil at $8 per barrel and sell it at $80!

At this point Mr. Mook will build 200,000 b/d emissionless solar
powered coal to liquid facilities and progress the way he had hoped to
progress in 2003.

If Mook has his way, by 2025 the world will be quite different than it
is today. I for one believes he will succeed.

PV...

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:07 pm

Guest

Sam West <smantenna at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote:96eb12fabe]According to the documents I have seen from Mr. Mook a single panel
production plant the size of a large bottling plant, handling the same
amount of liquids and plastic as a typical bottling plant, along with
a wafer fab making silicon dies with windows in them, and a silicon
foundry as a source of silicon, transforms the energy business in the
USA by making enough panels in 15 years to make enough hydrogen a day
[/quote:96eb12fabe]
Get back to us when someone is actually doing it. If it's that economically
viable, we'd see that happening. We don't. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.

Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:30 am Science Forum Index